There's an ignore feature-- rarely used but often invaluable for those who really get on your tits. I promise its use won't hurt anyone's feelings.

__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

I think this fellow said a lot of what I said, only better. Nicely put.

__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

I think this fellow said a lot of what I said, only better. Nicely put.

This fellow is under the misunderstanding that Ligget is a journalist. He's a sports commentator / color man. Like when curt shilling or some other dumbass is calling a red Sox game or on ESPN. Just because they're on TV talking and sometimes asking questions doesn't make them a journalist.

This fellow is under the misunderstanding that Ligget is a journalist. He's a sports commentator / color man. Like when curt shilling or some other dumbass is calling a red Sox game or on ESPN. Just because they're on TV talking and sometimes asking questions doesn't make them a journalist.

Perhaps the issue isn't quite as black and white as we'd like it to be. He's certainly got journalist in him, but I think that's really been overwhelmed by the effort to sell cycling to the masses.

He certainly didn't have anything approaching journalistic objectivity in that interview.

He didn't even try.

__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

Phil is watching the biggest thing to ever happen to the spectator sport of cycling go down in flames. Cycling has been his (Liggett's) life and he's seen it from every angle. Up close. So IMO he's one of the people who knows everything there is to know. So I think he's taking a lot of flak because people see him insisting there's no evidence (even though there is) of something which he damn well knows is going on, which many of Lance's closest teammates appear to have testified is going on (testimony flatly contradicting Liggett and Armstrong and McQuaid and which is now going to remain sealed), and which has been going on for more than the 50-odd years Liggett has been in the sport.

This line stuck with me from the comments: "Liggett is from the Old Old Generation – the generation where riders went on strike to complain about doping being banned. Perhaps it’s inevitable that he’s not quite as determined to deal with doping as some of his younger audience."

Liggett brought cycling to English speakers all over, even before Lance, but Lance brought cycling to the masses--and to the markets--in the U.S. Phil will count on this fact, on Lance's cancer fights, and on the silence of the sealed documents to preserve his own legacy and Armstrong's, and to give him the political space to make statements like these.

Insight as one person conveys it. More 'not sure', 'I think', 'he said she said' and character portraits. Quite obvious that this is more a popularity, or more accurately a non-popularity, contest than a straight forward investigation.. So he is an asshole. WTF does that have with proof of doping?

Insight as one person conveys it. More 'not sure', 'I think', 'he said she said' and character portraits. Quite obvious that this is more a popularity, or more accurately a non-popularity, contest than a straight forward investigation.. So he is an asshole. WTF does that have with proof of doping?

As much as I don't care for Lance for the some of the exact reasons described in that article, the author comes off as a knob with a serious axe to grind.

Dostoevsky couldn't have written a more unreliable narrator.

__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

Insight as one person conveys it. More 'not sure', 'I think', 'he said she said' and character portraits. Quite obvious that this is more a popularity, or more accurately a non-popularity, contest than a straight forward investigation.. So he is an asshole. WTF does that have with proof of doping?

Well, yeah. Note the use of the word "some." I didn't feel the need to state the obvious.

Outside magazine has actually been doing a pretty good job of covering all of this. There have been at least 3 articles over the past year in the magazine proper, and who knows how many snippets in the online version. You can find an article supporting pretty much any opinion on the subject in there...